1/3 The damage is clearly visible in daylight (photo: Noël van Hooft)
Paul K. (44) from Waalre has been acquitted of an attack on the house of an officer in Best. According to the court in Den Bosch, there is insufficient evidence that he had a role in its preparation or implementation. Two weeks ago, the justice department demanded another six years in prison against him.
On the night of December 12 to 13, 2020, an explosion took place under the carport of a house on Bokspring in Best. This caused several windows to burst and a small fire started under that carport. At the time, the police officer’s wife and children were sleeping in the house.
Paul K. would have wanted to take revenge on the officer because he previously issued fines to his son. But the court acquits the man of that accusation. According to the court, the criminal file contains indications that Paul K. knew about the preparation of the arson, but there is no concrete evidence for his direct involvement.
Cell tower data shows that the suspect’s phone was near his own home in Waalre around the time of the attack, and the DNA found on the cap and thread of a bottle of gasoline used in the explosion does not belong to K. According to the court, there are no further indications that the suspect was near the crime scene before, during or after the fire. There is also no concrete evidence that the suspect ordered the arson or that he assisted in its execution. As a result, the accusation cannot be proven legally and convincingly.
Are you interested in even more special court stories? Then subscribe to our podcast and don’t miss anything about crime and lawsuits in Brabant.
Waiting for privacy settings…
During the hearing, Paul K. (44), together with his lawyer Yannick Quint, was very vocal about the judicial investigation, which, according to them, amounts to a collection of so-called suspicious cases. According to them, it can only be summarized under one heading: tunnel vision.
According to the lawyer, far too limited research had been done. He was surprised that there was ‘not a single critical note’ about the officer in the file. “You cannot question a colleague critically,” he explained.
